It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How NASA has staged Apollo Moon Mission

page: 5
17
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 04:30 AM
link   




posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 04:32 AM
link   



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 04:35 AM
link   
Vrroooooooommmmmm!




posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 04:41 AM
link   
reply to post by cushycrux
 


Excellent, thank you. You seem to have fairly plausible scenario there. Good comparison by the way.



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 04:41 AM
link   
"It's so hot here, can we make that second take tomorrow?"



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 04:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish
The astronauts in the footage do not jump as high as they should be able too.


How high did they jump?
How high should they have jumped?
How do you know how hard they jumped?


The astronauts appear to be moving slower when in fact they should be moving faster because there is no air resistance.


How much air resistance do you think there is at about 5km/h? Just think about that


The only "modification" to the Hasselblad cameras was painting them silver.


and the tether ring, and the anti static strip. Just shows how good hasselblad cameras are designed and built!


Sorry but that's the funniest one of them all


Why do you think it is funny? what modifications do you think they needed to do?

[edit on 6/1/10 by dereks]



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 04:53 AM
link   
"Congratulations! Just by drawing two orange circlers you disproved the professor of math (geometry)" That really makes me also wonder. But it's just not the same perspective- prof. or not, doesn't matter!



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 05:05 AM
link   
reply to post by cushycrux
 


yeah the two pictures are undoubtedly different perspectives.

If that professor truly believed those pictures were taken from the same vantage point, then i have bad news for any students he may have taught . . .

[edit on 1/6/2010 by JPhish]



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 05:27 AM
link   
My last post here to take you all seriously:


This is the same WALLPAPER?



UPDATE:
Perfect Fit of "Field of View" from that Prof. PDF.


[edit on 6-1-2010 by cushycrux]


jra

posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 05:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProRipp
What about protection from radiation in the VA belt for one ? Please I know your not that naive ?


Well I figured that goes without saying. Obviously there are all sorts of requirements that need to be met for supporting humans. Electronics also need protection from radiation as well you know. But when I talk about technology, I'm referring to the vehicle itself and rockets and how it all works. The basic principals of how a manned Lunar lander and a robotic one work, are the same.


Originally posted by Lillydale
I am really sorry. I thought I was talking with someone that knew a little something about this. I had no idea how little.


Instead of resorting to belittling, how about you demonstrate your knowledge in this subject.


It takes far far far far far far far more to send a person as opposed to a machine. We need a little more than air and a nice chair to get to the moon. It is not even remotely the same technology


Besides the obvious requirements for supporting humans. How is the technology between a manned lander and a robotic one not remotely the same? Please explain and educate me on that. And the more detail the better. Thank you.


p.s. Cat got your tongue on that rock things? So did we go around presented petrified wood as gifts or not?


Well it seems like you didn't read my post on that. I thought I was pretty clear, when I said that the gift was a private gift from the US ambassador to the former PM. From what I understand, they were friends. This is not something the US Government did, it was simply a gift between friends. And the former PM had been out of office for over a decade by 1969, and according to his grandson, he was partly deaf and blind as well. So it seems that he had a misunderstanding as to what he was given.


Originally posted by JPhish
The astronauts in the footage do not jump as high as they should be able too.


Nor would they want to. Why would you want to risk damaging your suit and risk death just for the sake of jumping high? With the PLSS (the backpack) on there back, it offsets there center of mass. So when you jump up high, you have a tendency to tip over backwards.


The astronauts appear to be moving slower when in fact they should be moving faster because there is no air resistance.


Air resistance has little effect on the body on Earth at low speeds. Plus you wouldn't want to be moving too fast while on the Moon. A fully suited astronaut weighs about 300lbs on Earth and about 50lbs on the Moon, but they still have the mass of 300lbs to deal with. So once you get moving, you still need to apply enough force to slow your 300lbs of mass. My memory might be bad on this, but I seem recall times when the astronauts missed there mark by a bit because they didn't slow down soon enough.


The only "modification" to the Hasselblad cameras was painting them silver.


You sure about that? I think you might want to double check your sources.


But it does prove the footage is not genuine unless they were disingenuous about the conditions on the moon or the equipment used.


Or perhaps that you haven't looked deep enough into the equipment used and how things were designed/modified to work on the Moon. I have yet to see any evidence, let alone proof, that the photos and video are not genuine.

[edit on 6-1-2010 by jra]



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by cushycrux
reply to post by bokonon2010
 


And now this warwick PDF:
NOT THE SAME PERSPECTIVE!


And that you mock me, says all - then stay dumb, - if this is you wish.

[edit on 6-1-2010 by cushycrux]


When I stand outside my next-door neighbors' front door looking at a distant hill, that hill looks the same to my eyes as it does from my front door -- even though my view of our front yards looks different.


[edit on 1/6/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 07:10 AM
link   
reply to post by cushycrux
 


Thanks for posting all of those publicly released pictures of how the astronauts trained to go to the Moon -- but how do they support the Moon Hoax theory?

[edit on 1/6/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
reply to post by cushycrux
 


Thanks for posting all of those publicly released pictures of how the astronauts trained to go to the Moon -- but how do they support the Moon Hoax theory?

[edit on 1/6/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]


what hoax?



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by cushycrux

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
reply to post by cushycrux
 


Thanks for posting all of those publicly released pictures of how the astronauts trained to go to the Moon -- but how do they support the Moon Hoax theory?

[edit on 1/6/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]


what hoax?

I'm sorry -- I misunderstood your reason for posting those.



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


Want more pix, - rare as hell?



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 11:07 AM
link   
msp.warwick.ac.uk...

[edit on 6.1.2010 by bokonon2010]



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by cushycrux
My last post here to take you all seriously:


This is the same WALLPAPER?



UPDATE:
Perfect Fit of "Field of View" from that Prof. PDF.

[edit on 6-1-2010 by cushycrux]


cprourke (1 week ago)

She never touches the main point which is that the contour map (fig 5) is incompatible with the view from S7 (fig 2). The contour map predicts an angle of about 11deg between the ridge and the RH slope and fig2 has an angle of 18deg. The fact that many aspects of perspective are correct does not invalidate this point. Reality has ALL aspects of perspective correct, not just SOME.

Colin Rourke
www2.warwick.ac.uk...



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra


And the former PM had been out of office for over a decade by 1969, and according to his grandson, he was partly deaf and blind as well. So it seems that he had a misunderstanding as to what he was given.



[edit on 6-1-2010 by jra]


Oh please c'mon you don't expect us to really believe this ?
Why would he present him with petrified wood ? Did he collect it ? Was it a hobby ? Was he takin the p1ss ? He presented it as 'Moonrock' you know it, I know it, lillydale knows it and thats how he 'knew it' !



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProRipp

Originally posted by jra
And the former PM had been out of office for over a decade by 1969, and according to his grandson, he was partly deaf and blind as well. So it seems that he had a misunderstanding as to what he was given.


Oh please c'mon you don't expect us to really believe this ?
Why would he present him with petrified wood ? Did he collect it ? Was it a hobby ? Was he takin the p1ss ? He presented it as 'Moonrock' you know it, I know it, lillydale knows it and thats how he 'knew it' !

Yeah -- but it is NOTHING AT ALL like the rest of NASA's Moon rocks.
This event has nothing whatsoever to do with the supposed "Moon Hoax".

For the sake of the Moon Hoax, it's irrelevant why that rock was presented to the ambassador, then passed along to the former PM. There may have been a misunderstanding -- or it may have been deliberate deception. However, that possible deception has nothing to do with an alleged Moon Hoax.

What does that rock given to the PM have anything to do with the Moon rocks NASA has given to geologists to study? Any geologist could identify that Dutch rock as being petrified wood, but NONE of the Moon rocks being scrutinized and tested by geologists have been identified as petrified wood.

I don't know -- Perhaps the rock given to the Dutch PM was meant to be symbolic -- like a "Key to the City" given to honor a VIP. Those "Keys to the City" don't really unlock anything -- they are just symbolic.


[edit on 1/6/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 11:57 AM
link   
Sorry Mr. Rourke and anyone else, I didn't want start a debate, everyone can believe what he wants. The reality will not lie, so we will see one day what's true and what's not. I just started posting stuff because some guys didn't get me serious here. And now I really stop posting - because I know the ego of most people has no working filters that can stop them to "know wrong". I don't want say you are all wrong, but it seems to be so for me in this case.

With respect and estimation.

Cushy Crux (The)

[edit on 6-1-2010 by cushycrux]



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join